ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Vedek Dukat
Archive 1 | Archive 2 Non-Canon Will you please take a moment and review the canon policy discussion page before making any further deletions of non-canon notations. It is not Memory Alpha policy to delete non-canon articles solely for that reason, which appears to have been your concern according to one of your notes. There is a very nice, lengthy discussion of the matter on that page, and if you have concerns about it please continue that discussion. That way we can stop making the same changes back and forth. Thanks, Aholland 06:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Please note that I've modified your inserts on non-canon to use the proper terminology of "Restricted Validity Resource". That way it tracks to policy. I'm otherwise okay in concept with what you are trying to do in the note. Also please understand I have no idea how to create or modify a template or I would have simply done it there. :) Aholland 06:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :Sorry for the misunderstanding and not explaining myself before - it just seemed odd to have an article on a topic and promptly state "this article is non-canon", which to most fans would make them wonder why they're here instead of the non-canon wiki. But anyway, feel free to modify the wording of the template so long as you leave it intact, as I think a boilerplate or otherwise dynamic message would be best for this issue. Although, I think the phrase "Restricted Validity Resource" just confuses most people instead of clarifying it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC) ::I found the template and discussed the point on its discussion page. I'm there in concept, we just need to get the words right. I am not hard over on "RVR", but we can't just call it a "valid resource" either as that is technically wrong. Anyway, let's just move the conversation over there as I finally found it and like the idea of a standard template. Aholland 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Shakespeare I found this as a good point of reference...I'm locating the sources this person got his/her information. Hopefully, I can come up with some good things too. http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/star.trek.html And when is this Risk game starting? Tyger 16:03, 15 March 2006 :Wow - I am so contacting that professor to see if he'll let us use that! Copyright-wise the guy presumably gave up his rights when he let the professor put it on the Internet, and content-wise it's screaming "use me!" Great find! :Sorry, but Diplomacy is on hiatus until I get some stuff sorted out. Once I have more time I'll get around to sending that initial e-mail and getting the ball rolling. My fault for not following up on what the deal is. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) ::no problem, i've been busy myself too :) AWESOME! I'm so happy that we got approval. Once I free up some time in my schedule, I'll get started on the article. Feel free to poke me once in awhile on AIM. I'm beginning to think my idea isn't so original :) Another good article: http://scifi.about.com/library/weekly/aa022800.htm Would you like to contact the person because I'm not sure what to say to get permision to use some of the things she wrote. The Marta commentary is very juicy since I never saw the episode, (anyone got the episode to share?). The stuff she wrote about Henry V in TNG is pretty much the same thing what I was going to come up with. Either way, let me know how you want to go about this. Homosexuality The Pel quote you have on your user page is a nice catch, feel like working it into the sex article? Jaf 04:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf :I actually don't know if it would have a place in that article. It's somewhat subjective - you could say Dax meant in a brotherly way, or however you want to interpret it - and, assuming I'm correct in my interpretation, 99% of people would probably go "'Rules of Acquisition'? That wasn't about sex..." if I cited it as evidence. One of these days I'll get around to making a meta article about homosexuality in Trek; that's why I left the quote as a reminder. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) ::I tracked down a lot of the sources, such as , and in Startrek to homosexuality when we were setting up the sex page and what you've there is as good as anything else we've got, it just has to be persented in such a way as to not seem definitive. Jaf 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf AotW Thanks for the suggestion on MA:AotW, and you were right about the semicolon. For future reference, feel free to edit Template:ArticleOfTheWeek when you find an error like that. We've fortunately had few enough vandals (or maybe it's because the admins are so vigilant about vandal-busting) that most things like that aren't protected. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, no problem. I don't have time to edit MA much, but I look things up in it at least weekly, so I do the odd small edit like that as a pay-off. :) - Hayter 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Dukat's Bird I was wondering, where was it said Dukat named his ship after Tora Naprem? -- Excelsior 13:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC) :I'm gonna reply on "Talk:Naprem" in case anyone else has any questions. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Politics Please see Memory Alpha:No personal attacks and reconsider linking to my profile in the way you have. I'm sure it was done in a moment of frustration and you'll think differently when you've calmed down. Thanks. Aholland 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :It was certainly underhanded, although it wasn't a personal attack. I do apologize in any case... As Jaf put it on IRC, you're a bitter pill to swallow, but if nothing else you keep us all on our toes. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks for being understanding about the link. I hope that - bitter or sweet - we can still work together here. :) Aholland 21:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) User page edit Just so you know, I added to your userpage that you opened negotiations to make MA/es - hope you don't mind. ;-) Weyoun 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :Nah, I don't share the view that "my page is my page" or however you want to interpret the rule about not editing user pages. Thanks for being modest/honest though instead of something like "He's also responsible for creating MA/es" (which I'm not). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Log Entries :"On most episode pages, log entries are included as part of the main episode summary, with indented italics used to separate them from the main body. I'd suggest discussing the matter on ten forward before doing it differently. Thanks! --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)" I see your point, but lets exa--Illwill 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)mine a couple of examples. In the TOS episode, ), we have an example of a complete episode summary. If you notice, who ever wrote the summary used the newer act format in which the summary is split into parts based on commercial breaks. In this way it is very clear where the log entries belong and everything fits into place relatively well. Now the alternative is an episode like ( ), though there is an episode summary there is no clear place to put the log entries. The only way to incorporate the log entries into the actual episode summary is to rewrite the summary itself, accounting for commercial breaks and noting exactly when the log entry was made. Since my purpose is only to preserve the log entries and not to write episode summaries (I'll leave that for someone else to do) I figured it best to give --Illwill 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)the log entries their own place on the page. When someone else decides to rewrite the summary they can note and place the log entries where they belong. The seperate log entry heading is only a temporary holder until the episode summaries are rewritten into the newer format. If you notice I haven't changed added a log entry heading to any episode that has a complete summary (ie. including Act Breaks). I thought that just placing the log entries in the summary section would look a bit disorganized. If you have a suggestion on where I could place the log entries on episodes like please let me know.--Illwill 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) :Well actually, I agree with you. is an example of a well done summary, but in Homefront the log entries are completely left out. The format of the summary for Homefront is exactly the same as that of except "Where No Man Has Gone Before" has inline log entries(like ). "Ensign Ro" is however, an older style episode summary that isn't broken up into acts. What I am trying to say is that the more complete episode summaries are usually broken up into acts(Homefront and Where No Man Has Gone Before). What I was trying to do was add Log entries into the episode summaries. If I found that the episode isn't already broken into acts I add a seperate section for Log Entries, which presumably will be removed when someone(other than me) decides to rewrite the episode summary in such a way to allow the inclusion of log entries easily. I feel log entries are important because they are officially parts of the federation record, the rest of a summary, though stating fact, is worded according to the authors own perception of what is going on(a person new to star trek might word a summary a bit differently then a veteran). A log entry however, is obsolute(hence the need for their inclusion). The only reason I don't write the summaries myself is that I don't have the will to put in the time... Anyways hope this clears up my point--Illwill 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Its not that I think that it will look choppy if I place the Log entries into some of the older style episode summaries, its that many of them aren't written in such a way that one could easily include the log entries(strickly on how they are worded). Since I have no desire to rewrite those summaries I just add the log entries in thier own section. When there's only one log entry at the beginning of the episode I put at the beggining of the episode but with multiple log entries, if the episode isn't broken up into acts its very difficult to incorporate log entries directly (hence it will have to wait for a rewrite)--Illwill 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Ideally, all episode summaries could look like broken up into acts with inline log entries (minus the writer added act names) --Illwill 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC) New summary: Through the Looking Glass ...So I'm in possession of DS9 Seasons 3-7 (for the time being), and the first ep guide I've tackled is . This leads me to a few likely silly questions: * According to the shim text, the References section exists for the sake of linking to MA articles that aren't mentioned in other sections of the episode guide. However, I made a point of going link-happy with the summary copy, so that the reference list is likely to be very short. Is this appropriate, or should the references list actually duplicate the links in the summary copy? * In my early drafts of the summary copy, I referenced the term Officer of the Deck, and others stepped in to remind me that the term is ambiguous in a Trek context. However... I strongly suspect that the existence of the designation is implied, and buried as a footnote somewhere in a qualified resource. Could you obtain the last word on the subject from such a resource, or help me build an appropriate contact path? (Apologies in advance for splitting hairs.) * While there is a stub for interrogation, there is no article at all for torture, which seems odd given Garak's reputation and the existence of the agony booth in the Mirror Universe. Should this be seen to? Persist1 :My responses (not as Vedek obviously... just as another episode summarizer): :*Hopefully, the fact that it's a "red link" will spur someone to writing it. :) :*In terms of References, I've actually tended to putting all of the references from the text of the article, plus anything else I caught in the show. My logic is that the references has "all" references. I've noticed from other articles that people seem to be equally split on filling the references with all of them, or just the excess ones. I'd say... your call, but don't take my word as final here. :*Did you check out the Episode Call of Duty page? If not, check it out, and if your episode is on there, strike it out of the list in the same way the others are done. And mark which episode you're going to attack next :) :-- Sulfur 00:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC) ::In response to the first question, the references section was originally meant to link only terms not used in the article already, e.g. some piece of Treknology you're not likely to mention in a summary, which is included there for the sake of knowing where it appeared and as a reference for anyone looking it up. However, Sulfur pretty much summed up the way it tends to be done in practice - terms that were referenced, outside of obvious ones like "Bajoran" and "Deep Space 9". ::When it comes to splitting hairs about what is "canonical", I think the search methods Weyoun lists on his user page tend to be helpful, although there are many cases where the script and actual episode have noticeable differences. I'd suggest you Google it, as I'm in a hurry but wanted to address your question before I go. ::I would say creating an article on torture is appropriate, so be bold and create one - we can always work out the details later. A lot of abstract or real-world concepts aren't covered as well as they might be, for a variety of reasons. Shakespeare and Star Trek is an example of the change in that trend though. :) ::And about the "Call of Duty", I'd imagine you knew about it already (hence turning to me with your question), but if not, you should definitely check it out. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :::When Sulfur first gave me feedback about my inaugural effort, he mentioned the projects in need of attention and of course the Episode Call of Duty was on that list - though as I pointed out to him, I'm still skittish around wikistuff (I work with secure CMSes all day at work, and it's hard sometimes to erase the discipline and habits I've developed as a result)... but with that in mind, I'll be adding my username to that resource shortly. :::Thanks for your feedback! Persist1 03:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :::So... gah. My first pass through Google's no help, which is to say that it reveals no canon Officer of the Deck designation. The background on my point is that a number of USN hallnarks are evident in the Starfleet milieu (e.g., rank designations, departmental organization), while others (e.g., OOD, Captain's Mast, shipboard rituals) are frequently and strongly implied. Likewise to a lesser degree WRT Royal Navy practices. Is there any kind of extant resource - an interview with a producer, say - that might explain what guidance (if any) production crews have followed in this regard? Persist1 03:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC) ::::There have been dozens of books published about Star Trek, and numerous interviews are floating around the net and on the DVD sets. I don't recall reading anything focusing solely on that aspect of it though. Perhaps you could sketch out an idea of what you're thinking (the similarities and such) and that will develop into something else - that's how the Shakespeare page came into being, and probably how Aholland's project about design patents started out too. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Duty Roster Since I didn't follow the debate very closely, I would like your opinion on this: some facts: * the duty roster is a little outdated ( is not alone) * Template:Pna-episode seemed to have gained in popularity, but it is still difficult to browse since it mixes all the series/seasons * officially being part of Memory_Alpha:Pages_needing_attention would certainly gives some visibility What would you think of creating templates like DS9-pna-episode? In the DS9 case, there is not much summaries left to be done, so that wouldn't be much of a problem. For other series, maybe we could create "temporary", seasonnal templates for the sake of classification. The quantity would certainly justify it. Maybe we could also make a better use of Memory_Alpha:Requested_pictures and the like (through templates again), instead of doing everything manually. - Rcog 03:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :Having a template that divides the episodes by series would work for me. The main reason I didn't support moving solely to the pna-episode was the lack of organization, but you're probably on the right track. I'm willing to phase the duty roster out in favor of specialized templates if the community wants to go in that direction. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC) ::What about a template that is something like or , and then have the page sort them accordingly, similar to the category sorts right now? Would that be feasible? -- Sulfur 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC) :::I don't think it would work as well, because even though they'd be ordered accordingly, that's more for cases of, say, ordering by last name - they'd still show up as one big list lumped together. I think the seasonal template idea works best. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) :::: Discussion here, if you want to participate -- Rcog 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for your note. KahlessTheUnforgettable 01:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)KahlessTheUnforgettable Holy crap Holy crap, I typed "Tripartite micro-sealing mechanism" into the search box and it actually found something! Thanks, Vedek! :D PS: Get on IRC ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) :Haha... Yeah, just making sure we've got all our bases covered. I'm actually working right now, which is why my edits may trickle in slowly. I'll get on IRC later if I get a chance. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) user subpage Hey, thanks for answering my questions about what may or may not go on a user subpage. As it is I'm only in my first week as an official member of Memory Alpha, so I haven't created that many articles yet (only two to date). Once I'm done with my user subpages though I should be done with them for good. I guess I will create two for now, one dedicated to Commodore and one dedicated to hypothetical information, explanations for continuity errors, etc. If it becomes a problem eventually then I'll delete it. In the mean time, I should probably be thinking of what other articles to create... --Antodav 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ---- Thanks, I might visit IRC at some point in the future, though at the moment I really want to get these subpages out of the way so I can get back to creating actual articles...and also, to work on my story projects, which are a priority of mine. I appreciate the invitation though. --Antodav 06:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ---- Two it is then, thanks. :-) --Antodav 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Duet It appears to me that you added the line concerning Nana Visitor's comment that "Duet" was a favorite of hers. Could you please cite the source of this quote? thanks. Naufana : talk 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Pic of the day. There are plenty of unused dates available. It is rude to place a P.O.D. choice over the choice of another. Just pick another date, that's all. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC) :Would you mind explaining the significance of File:DeadSevenTimeless.jpg though? It seems a little pointless (no offense). --Vedek Dukat 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC) We talked about it on IRC and I'll just blame it on the fact that I've been away from MA for over a year, it was late, and I was bored. No hard feelings. :-) --Vedek Dukat 23:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Very well. Apology accepted. But I quote from the template guidelines: Pick something somewhat ''unique, visually appealing, interesting, and/or, important.'' Any user can therefore pick an image that, to him, meets these criteria. Thus importance need not even be a consideration. That said, however, I have suggested to two administrators that a regularized selection process be used to choose and approve images. The system as it currently exists lends itself to conflict and edit wars between users. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 02:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Sock puppet accounts Hi Vedek. Several accounts have been identified as being sock puppet accounts of your main account (this one). With these accounts you've caused trouble for the past weeks - which, I hope, stops now. The identified accounts were permanently banned from MA/en, your main account was blocked for one week. Please don't try a stunt like that again. Following this, I will open a forum thread linking to all contributions made with your sock puppet accounts, so that they can be reviewed and eventually reverted. -- Cid Highwind 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Your version of the main page I've archived, via deletion, your version of the main page. The panels and layout have changed enough from when it was created to make it obsolete, and the need to keep it updated every time something changes is a hassle. If you want it restored, just let me know. :) - 18:34, October 26, 2012 (UTC)